Fodor's may use your email address to send you relevant information on site updates, account changes, and offers. For more information about your privacy and protection, please review our full Privacy Policy.

100 years of French gratitude

(I posted this first in the Lounge but decided to duplicate post here...)

We took a great trip through the WWI battlefields in Eastern France last year, and I've been promoting the area to my history-loving friends. After reading this article, I want to return and explore some more.

Yesterday commemorated the day of 22 August 1914 which was the bloodiest day in history for the French army. More than 27,000 soldiers died that day along the Belgian border. In the Belgian village of Rossignol, 7000 French soldiers died, more than during the entire 8 years of the Algerian war of independence. 40,000 French soldiers died in a 6-day period.

Yay for the American army waiting until April 2, 1917. Better late than never.

I was surprised to find that the writing style of the article really annoyed me. I somewhat agree with the premise of the article -- that many Americans have fallen for a false right-wing line about France and "ungrateful" Europeans -- when in fact one repeatedly encounters embarrassing expressions of gratitude towards Americans (embarrassing to me because I was born long after WW2 and did nothing to liberate Europe!)

Not long ago on an Italian train a somewhat elderly German man recounted to me how much he appreciated the Berlin airlift as a 4 year old child and said it had permanently colored his view of America and Americans in a positive way. He still felt that way even when he learned in school that Americans bombs had destroyed his family home and killed many people he knew. When he was old enough to travel the first place he went was a road trip all around America -- and he said he liked everyone he met.

So this line some politicians and pot-stirrers push about unappreciative or insufficiently admiring Europeans doesn't withstand the test of actually talking to a variety of Europeans.

To start, this wasn't 'our' war. We had no defense treaties with the countries involved, and public opinion overwhelmingly supported neutrality, especially in the large German-American, Irish-American (anti-British) and Swedish-American communities. Our Civil War had ended 50 years earlier, and the loss of nearly 700,000 men in that conflict had not been forgotten.

It was the German's sinking of several U.S. merchant ships in early 1917 that really turned public opinion, and after the U.S. declared war in April 1917, naval forces and ground troops began arriving in Europe within weeks.

We weren't ready to wage war on this scale in 1914. We didn't have the practice that all you Europeans had. We had no large, trained, standing army; we weren't a world military power and only recently had become an industrial power. Even if we'd had masses of troops and material at the ready we didn't have the means to transport them quickly to Europe.

When the U.S. declared war on Germany, my great-uncle left his university after graduation ceremonies and enlisted in a previously non-existent U.S. Air Service. He had to learn how to fly a plane, be transported to France, wait for aircraft to be delivered, learn how to pilot the specific planes provided and work with mechanics to resolve problems with inferior propellers and spark plugs. And yet, he was flying over enemy territory just 10 months after enlisting. Eight months after arriving in the war zone, he was shot down and died on French soil... You're welcome. Sorry he took so long.

Sorry, but I'm afraid the simplistic tone of that article leaves itself open to that sort of reaction, especially if you factor in the complexities of relations between the Allies over the peace settlement.

British revisionist histories, forsooth? According to Hollywood, a solitary American airman won the Battle of Britain. Americans captured the Enigma machine, even before America entered the war. My old dad had the Burma Star. His opinion of Hollywood on that campaign was unrepeatable.
I'm always amazed at how ordinary French people and villages risked their liberty and even their lives to shelter British servicemen and their Jewish neighbours.

Just in case you'll still be traveling to Europe this year:
In several capital cities and elsewhere you find dedicated expositions to showcase the history of WWI in the respective countries or regions.

Meanwhile, today is the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Paris. You will all recall that the American military command ordered the French and British armies to remove all black soldiers from the divisions involved so that no people of color would appear in any of the photographs.

Great info. We did not focus on WWI = but on WWII when we traveled through Belgium and Luxembourg since that was my parents war (father, his brother, my mothers' two bothers and numerous cousins of both sexes all saw action - the men all in europe - and thank god all come through - although one cousin was in the Battle of the Bulge and nearly didn't make it).

And no, the AEF wasn't there at the beginning for a whole variety of political reasons - but did turn the tide when they arrived. One of my grandfathers served there - he was a courier (motorcycle since electronic communications were not reliable) and was under fire almost day in and out - but again - came through unscathed physically if not mentally (he would never talk about it to his wife or kids).

There is no clear way for everybody to look at the war the same way. In WW1, the armies were at a stalemate when the Americans finally arrived, so obviously the Americans tipped the balance and made the war end faster. What would have happened if they had not come? Who knows? The war would have lasted longer is the only sure thing.

As for WW2, the Americans were essential, but that of course makes Europeans wonder why they stayed out in 1939... 1940... 1941... 1942... 1943... The important thing is that they finally arrived, but one is obliged to wonder how they would have handled a war on their own soil. They did not hesitate at all to totally destroy all of the towns of Normandy and lots of other places, but would they have done the same to Trenton, Bridgeport, Roanoke or Charleston? We'll never know. My great aunt and uncle lost their apartment in Courbevoie, just 3km from Paris, to the American bombs. Were they happy to be liberated? Of course, but did they need to lose everything they owned? Would Americans have bombed Brooklyn the same way?

The only famous destruction of an American city was the burning of Atlanta, but that was an "enemy" city to the Union troops.

I don't think it was until 9-11 that Americans truly understood what it was like to have things attacked and destroyed at home.

As for WW2, the Americans were essential, but that of course makes Europeans wonder why they stayed out in 1939... 1940... 1941... 1942... 1943...

The Americans landed troops in North Africa in November 1942, if I remember correctly my history. One might question the tactic of starting with Africa, but direct American involvement on the ground started before the implied 1944. Others can comment on the date of direct U.S. involvement when it comes to naval activities.

My grandfather died in his mid-30s of long lasting wounds he suffered when he was gassed in the trenches of France in WW1.

War is an immense tragedy of which we should all be ashamed still exists. Attempts to turn the memories of war into sentimental occasions for pride or bonding with others or celebrations of heroism or happy family travel strike me as wrongheaded and even morally wrong. The vast majority of grandparents and great uncles who fought or suffered bombing and gassing and loss were pawns of politics and were told enormous lies. That so many of those who survived nonetheless tried to right wrongs and go on to raise decent famliles and rebuild civilzation is something to be honored not the depravity of wartime. That they failed is deeply troubling and that the same lies and depravity continue to find an audience and those willing to glorify war is also dreadful and a threat to everybody.

War is a collapse of everything decent. You really can't expect people who know what it is to talk about it cheerfully or not be annoyed or even infuriated by a chirpy travel article about it.

For history lovers and travelers through Europe this year the following is a link to an article published in yesterday's Irish Times about the lies told to induce young men to fight in WW1. As the article notes:

"War journalist and critic Phillip Knightley has noted in regard to World War 1 that: “.... more deliberate lies were told than in any other period of history, and the whole apparatus of the state went into action to suppress the truth”.

"One of the main protagonists of the war, British prime minister Lloyd George, admitted to CP Scott, editor of the Manchester Guardian in 1916 that: “If the people really knew [the truth] the war would be stopped tomorrow. But of course they don’t know and can’t know.”

As we commemorate World War 1, it is worth then reflecting on some of these substantial lies and try to comprehend why so many people signed up apparently so willingly.

Many articles, films, etc. are produced with specific audiences in mind. This happens in virtually every country, it's not unique to the US.

The article is intended to encourage American tourism of battle sites in France. That will help today's generation of French, even if it doesn't do jot for those who suffered directly umpteen years ago.

If the US gets involved in foreign wars, they are criticized. If they don't get involved, or get involved 'too late', they are criticized. There may be truth to both kinds of criticism, but it does make it a tad hard for the US to please everyone. (By the way I'm not American, so I have no personal axe to grind. Just making an observation or two.)

"You really can't expect people who know what it is to talk about it cheerfully or not be annoyed.."

The vast majority of people who knew what WW2 was, are dead. If you were 16 years old in 1939, you are over 90 today. My guess is that not many nonagenarians or even octogenarians post on Fodors, so let's drop the personal pronouns as if 'we' or 'I' have the right to wax indignant as a result of direct personal experience with that conflict. (Sorry kerouac, but I don't think you're over 80 let alone 90.) As for the bombing strategy, it is always easy to quarterback on Monday morning.

Meanwhile of the remainder still alive who can genuinely claim to have been directly involved in or directly affected by that conflict, they likely have for the most part decided that there are better things to do with their rapidly diminishing time left on this earth than to be annoyed over a newspaper article.

What people believed back in 1939 and certainly in 1914 likely spanned a whole spectrum of things. However, people back then were a different lot from what they are today. Few people in those days disputed the death penalty, or intervened when the man next door beat his wife or children. Conscientious objectors, i.e. pacifists, were not given a whole lot of respect.

The 'common people' may have been lied to, but I'm not so sure they were a bunch of pacifists, on the whole - not until or unless they viewed the war as unwinnable. In other words, I don't subscribe to the innocent common man/evil industrialist dichotomy. People are more complex than that.

Of course, the Americans did not do it alone, but how easily it is forgotten they freed a land that wasn't theirs. Twice. And did more militarily than the French.

Fortunately we have encountered French who was the opposite of kerouac. During our first trip to Paris in 1972, my wife was admiring and fingering the wrought iron work on Notre Dame. An well-dressed elderly Frenchman engaged us and offered to buy us a coffee. During the conversation I asked why he was so kind to absolute strangers. He said he appreciated what the Americans did in the two wars. When I stated the obvious that my wife and I nothing to with that, he said any time he could thank Americans, it was worthwhile.

So repeating this conversation more than 40 years later, he once again accomplished his end.

Actually the very first Frenchwoman we met was nasty. We were taking a train from Luxembourg to Paris and the compartment was extremely crowded. She looked at us and said her haughtiest French, "It must be there first time in France."

I wanted to lie and say, "Second," but my French was not is not good enough to maintain a reasonable conversation.

The French have gotten nicer since the treat others like humans campaign for the Olympics in Albertville.

I am a history buff, also interested in WWI but I will not enter this fray. However, I will recommend an intriguing book I just read on the subject: THE LONG SHADOW, the Legacies of the Great War in the Twentieth Century by David Reynolds.

The book is not about battles and strategies, but rather the long range effects of the "Great War" throughout the 20th century and beyond....

Concerning WW1 and its start, its interesting to note that British Prime Minister Asquith was at first leaning toward neutrality, and I believe it was in his diary that he said something like "Europe is facing a great slaughter, thank God we shall stay out it". It was foreign minister Grey who led the pro-war movement in the cabinet IIRC. So, not only was the US hesitant to join in the war, even Britain had second thoughts.
Had Asquith fought for neutality, he may very well have been unseated, but its likely many of the Liberal MP's would have supported him.

For those who still have an interest in visiting this part of France to learn a bit about WWI, I'll describe our trip.

The death of my great-uncle loomed large in my father's family. Following his death, decisions were made that have echoed down the years and impacted just about everything that is "me." My father would not have met my mother and I would not have met my husband if not for decisions made because of my GU's death.

I am the family genealogist and thus the temporary keeper of the artifacts of my GU. These include his medals and everything my great-grandmother saved from her Gold Star Mother pilgrimage to her son's grave in 1931 as well as a copy of the history of my GU's squadron written by a fellow pilot who survived the war.

(For those whose families don't have this depth of information, I suggest you contact the National Archives for WWI veteran records.)

Because of this information, my husband and I were able to follow my GU's path from his first destination, Chaumont, where his squadron waited 3 months for the French to deliver aircraft which were soon found to have inferior propellers and spark plugs. After delays in obtaining these aircraft parts, they were moved Gondreville where town officials and children held a 4th of July party for the Americans. The squadron's last move was to Vavincourt, and my husband and I were able to find the airfield from which my GU took his last flights.

My GU was shot down over Damvillers, and we visited the small German cemetery there where he was first buried by German troops. Both sides in the war held pilots in high regard and treated their remains with much respect. The Germans recorded the location of the grave and erected a marker so that my GU's remains could be recovered after the war. (It was interesting to note that among the graves still remaining in this cemetery were several marked with Stars of David indicating Jewish soldier who died for the Fatherland.)

We went to my GU's grave at the Meuse-Argonne Cemetery where, for a brief time, we were the only visitors in the place. Then, a bus full of French school children arrived. They took notes as their teacher spoke and copied down things engraved on the chapel walls before they left. A few other visitors came and went, and the cemetery returned to a peaceful silence.

In between our GU-related destinations, we explored the town of Verdun and a couple of WWI museums. We toured Ft. Douaumont to try to understand the significance of this fortification, the long stalemate and the conditions under which the soldiers (both French and German) lived in this place during the long Battle of Verdun. We visited the French cemetery and ossuary nearby to pay our respects and stopped at the destroyed town of Fleury. Everywhere we went, we had in our minds the photos we'd seen in the museums of what this area looked like after the war. There are lush forests now, but this place looked like the moon in 1918.

We stayed in a chateau-hotel south of Verdun. It had been used as a hospital during the war, and it's possible that my GU and members of his squadron who crashed (which was somewhat frequently) were taken to this chateau for medical attention. Also, the chateau was in a location that my GU flew over several times in his final days, so I imagined it being a navigation landmark of sorts.

Our visit to this part of France coincided with the 95th anniversary of my GU's death, and I hope to return to honor his sacrifice on the 100th anniversary. He enlisted and was not conscripted, so I know he believed in the cause for which he was fighting and risking his life. His country considered him a hero and bestowed the DSC and multiple Purple Hearts. The government of France bestowed the Croix de Guerre.

And just a note from here in the South Pacific, while the armed forces of New Zealand and Australia were in Egypt, France, Italy and other European theatres of war, the Americans were repelling the japs from our backyard. We won't have a bad word said about the Yanks. Without them in Europe and the Pacific, it would be a very different geopolitical landscape.

latedaytraveler, I wonder if you've also read "Over Here: The First World War and American Society" by David Kennedy. It's now about 25 years old, and I'm tempted to read your suggestion of "The Long Shadow" as an 'updated' interpretation of the war's impact. Any thoughts?

I have a vague memory that it was the Dastardly French who helped exhaust the British navy during the American war of Independance. Meanshile, across the pond the Brits/Prussians/Russians were saving Europe from Napolean.

>>If the US gets involved in foreign wars, they are criticized. If they don't get involved, or get involved 'too late', they are criticized.<<

It has been my experience that many people believe the "right" time for the US to get involved just happens to coincide with the exact moment their countries got involved. A day earlier is too early, and a day later is too late.

>>"The article is intended to encourage American tourism of battle sites in France."

Not exactly. The article is intended to promote the author's book. And the way it does it is understandably offensive to a lot of people.

The author of that article presumes to speak for the dead and for the children and grandchildren of the dead and for those in France who suffered monumentally and permanently . Its cheery "go be a tourist and get a thrill and enjoyment from these sights" is offensive. So is the idea that it is the icing on the cake that French people will thank you because you are American.

Do the rest of you get it now?

Jean's family anecdote about her great uncle is certainly hers to tell but as far as I am concerned it doesn't hold a candle to what happened to my mother when her father died of his WW1 gassing when she was a child in the Great Depression. She not only lost her father but she lost her mother too because her mother couldn't afford to raise her so she put her foster care.

This is a message board for tourists who love to tell self-dramatizing tales about their tourist adventures in Europe. There really is a point at which some people can't help but yell albeit rudely that NOT EVERYTHING in Europe exists to be a backdrop for the bigtime tourist selfie. Real people died and real people suffered and real people lost everything in these endless wars and you DON'T OWN THAT STORY.

Sure come to Europe and learn something. But also have a clue about how mixing up the awful tragedy these wars inflicted on some of us should be kept away from the excited chatter of "what a great time I had on my trip and I'm encouraging everybody to go! Can't wait to get back to those war sights of blood and anguish and long lasting harm!" (and did we mention the wine and the shopping is fantastic and we loved our hotel!"

bilbo: >>I have a vague memory that it was the Dastardly French who helped exhaust the British navy during the American war of Independance. Meanshile, across the pond the Brits/Prussians/Russians were saving Europe from Napolean.<<

(and I don't like the trip report any better when the excited OMG! Woo-hoo! chatter is replaced by plummy patriotic prose. I am truly sorry for the suffering of Jean's family and the families of others but these wars were filthy disasters and the sentimentality that exists in America now about the military past and present is not just offensive but dangerous.)

Thanks for the link, Cowboy. We are going to France and planning to see the Somme trench museum in Albert, even if Sandralist objects. I'll see if I can activate that link while we're there and see what else is happening.

So long as that doesn't mean telling other people to be silent. Some of the reactions in this thread to history they don't want to hear is like expecting all of us to behave like French schoolchilldren and just take notes and then leave the space to a "respectful" silence.

The "Great" war was a meaningless slaughter and continuing lies about it set the stage for yet more slaughter of millions and millions of families. It doesn't matter that many of the men who were sent to slaughter believed it had a good purpose. It didn't.

The demand for silence or the ostentatious shunning and ignoring of those who protest the sentimentalization of these events sets the stage for more families being left with dead fathers and dead uncles and distant burial grounds.

It is more than depressing to think that 100 years from now people will be writing trip reports about their piglrmages to burial grounds where young men who believed their governments lies ended up forever dead. That becomes more likely if people today are told "don't disturb the fairy tale. We bombed them and they loved it and those who died were eager to do this so let's be grateful and shut up about the rest."

Any my father would never buy a Japanese car - since 6 of his high school classmates were on the Arizona when it sank at Pearl Harbor.

As for when the US entered the war - we had been supplying arms to the British for years (lend lease) and ended up providing massive amounts of supplies, fuel, vehicles, etc to Russia as well as the western allies. And it was a fleet of Victory ships - incredibly built in 7 days each - that ferried all of this stuff and troops across the Atlantic - and how many merchant seamen died when U boats attacked supply convoys? I know when my father's convoy sailed some of the troop ships - his included - were left over from WWI - and his developed engine trouble. They were left behind with only a Canadian Corvette for escort (apparently armed only with machine guns and depth charges) - and eventually took 9 days to cross the Atlantic - at risk the entire time.

As for not being in the war my dad and his older brother and my mom's older brother were drafted in 1942 (some of the younger ones were still in school) and my dad was in North Africa, France and Germany from then through the end of the war in europe. Then shipped back to the US, got a one week leave and was in the process of being shipped to CA in preparation for the invasion of Japan when the bomb finally forced them to surrender.

And naturally one doesn't want to bomb allies - but the ones to blame for the damage are those who started the war - not those defending themselves and their allies.

After all - it IS a war. And killing the enemy - versus having your own troops killed - is the only way to win.

As for WWI - I don;t know anyone who is idealistic about it. It was a horrifically nasty war - not that any wars are not horrific. But if one doesn't defend one's country - then there will be no country.

It's not like Viet Nam - where the US was sucked in by the French and ended up in a war that really was none of our business.

Well, the Americans thought that the Iraqis would be in the streets waving little American flags when they arrived, too, speaking of wars that were none of their business.

My original point about WW1 is that Americans seem to have an incredibly inflated idea of their role in that war. The other armies lost 9 million soldiers, and 9 million civilians also lost their lives. The United States lost 120,000 soldiers. While that is not insignificant, it is most definitely not really comparable.

My stepfather was at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, but he was never angry with Japanese who did not participate in that war. He was later based in Japan after the war (until he went on to Korea) and thought it was a very nice country full of nice people.

I can't imagine how the linked article could be deemed offensive, given that the author did his best early on to dissuade people from believing the (entirely false, in my experience)rumours regarding the French people being rude. He also emphasized how grateful the French remain, which I also experienced in my travels with my father, whose father jumped out of a plane on DDay and whose sack my father carried on our journey in France. Many times locals came up to my father to chat and express their thanks for his father's service. It meant a lot to him and you could see it meant a lot to them.

I also can't understand why we wouldn't want to encourage more people to visit these war sites and memorials in the hopes of gaining a better understanding of just what took place and what was gained and lost. I'm Canadian and it's largely acknowledged that we became an independent country, with our own identity, because of our contribution and successes in the Great War. Why shouldn't we be encouraging our population to travel to France and see what our boys fought so hard for?

I've been to France twice and visited our greatest victories (Vimy, Juno, Ypres, Passchendaele) and also the sites of our greatest defeats (Ypres again, and Dieppe). To stand where our troops stood and survey the landscape, to walk amongst trenches and try to imagine what they went through defending Great Britain and France, is a moving experience. Lest we forget...

And let's give the Americans some credit regarding the Great War: unlike WW2, where they were directly attacked, the United States entered a war that wasn't their concern and swung the tide in favour of the Allies. Yes, there were commercial interests at stake that played a part in them entering the conflict. Yes, the British and French suffered far greater losses than the Americans. But had the Americans not entered the war, the Allies would have continued to hemorrhage men and materiel just to sustain the stalemate with little hope of finishing the Germans off. The Americans may have only fought for a year of the war, but they certainly were the deciding factor in it.

No - "the americans" did not think that. A fairly small misguided minority- lead by someone who apparently mistook gigantic cannoli tubes for military hardware may have though that. I know I didn't nor did my friends.

And I don;t believe most americans think about WWI at all - never mind have confusion about the role we played. Yes, we turned the tide after both sides had eaten each other into a state of collapse - I think at least partially a mental change besides just new, fresh troops, but the potential for a huge number of troops if needed - but also yes - our losses were minute compared to the other allies.

And if your father was able to separate the people - who supported the government that did that - from the government itself - good for him. A lot of people can't and I can't blame them.

I didn't blame my father and I don't blame jews who won't visit Germany because of what they or their families suffered there. I have visited Germany many times - but then my family never suffered what they did.

>>My original point about WW1 is that Americans seem to have an incredibly inflated idea of their role in that war. The other armies lost 9 million soldiers, and 9 million civilians also lost their lives. The United States lost 120,000 soldiers. While that is not insignificant, it is most definitely not really comparable.<<

That wrongly uses numbers of dead to gauge a country's "role." So that means Germany and Japan's "role" in WWII was more significant than the US's. Americans fully understand the sacrifice and horrors of WWII, but pointing out the casualty differences because the wars weren't fought on US soil seems like a silly way to argue about "roles."

Bilbo: >>vicenzo, we could discuss the battle of Copenhagen <<
Victory never would have been possible without aid from the Yanks. (BTW, who the hell won the battle of Copehagen? I assume it was the Copenhagenians.)

It is fine to talk abut the soldiers who were awarded medals and honors for valor in Ww1. It is find to visit the spot where they were annihilated and contemplate the import of their death.

But for every soldier like that there were 10000 soldiers who fled in terror or who cried and surrrenderd or who later shot themselves from horrific memories or shot their children or their neighbors instead in fits of madness. They drank themselves to death. There are still more thousands whose names we don't remember who had their heads beaten in and who were jailed for trying to speak up and stop thesewars. For every marked gravesite there are 10000 more where bodies were so chewed up nobody knew who they were or where animals ate the remains before the death was known and whose bodies were desecrated in fits of hatred from the locals they came to save.

The rest of these "unheroic" people deserve as much respect for their stories and lives as the tiny tiny handful whose story was otherwise and who actually have been shamelessly used to cover up an ugly slaughter without any redeeming moral cause behind it.

The sepia-toned "hero" story featuring a sassy well fed winking GI Joe who comes to save exhausted hollow-eyed Europe subtly hoodwinks you into believing that those other lives were lesser lives. You are supposed feel ashamed of those who ran away (sensibly) or didn't sign up and who protested the slaughter instead. You are supposed to keep silient unless you have a hero story to tell. Those other people just behaved like human beings do.

People who try to shout down that war hero story lie are doing everybody a favor. Cowards and protestors and innocent civilians had lives worth mourning and remembering too

>> People who try to shout down that war hero story lie are doing everybody a favor. Cowards and protestors and innocent civilians had lives worth mourning and remembering too.

The war hero story isn't a lie. There are genuine war heroes who sacrificed everything for their country, often in service to the aid of another country, who should be honoured and celebrated. I will pay homage to them and to their memories whenever I'm at a memorial or cemetery in France because they deserve to be so honoured, even if you or I disagree with the war and its purpose or lack thereof. Just because they died in service to a cause you don't believe in doesn't make their death any less honourable.

You're also assuming that by the article focusing on just one aspect of the war (or some of its individual stories) that its saying the protestors and innocent civilians shouldn't be honoured. I don't see anything in the article that says they're all worthless individuals who should be forgotten. Do I personally think we should honour the cowards who deserted? No. But not honouring someone is different than completely dismissing them.

The bulk of the human population during the Great War were average folk: farmers, wives, children, non-combatants. The special few who fought and sometimes died deserve to be revered. Every Canadian going to France on holiday should visit Vimy and Juno to pay their respects. Americans must go to Omaha and the Argonne and pay their respects. You may disagree with the war but you must also respect the sacrifices these boys made for all of us.

My experience is that any "sentimentality that exists in America . . . about wars past and present" is much less today than at any time in my life.

I agree with you that the "Great War" was meaningless slaughter, but I've never read any unbiased history that said it was anything but that, with the one huge caveat that the "peace treaty" following WWI led directly to WWII.

BTW--on the merits, I agree with the author of the article about the French and with Kerouac on the relative contributions to the War.

That is absolutely ridiculous. Americans have as many different thoughts and opinions as there are Americans.
This could have been such an interesting thread until personal opinions and political lectures were given by the same two posters that always think they know it all.

I'd probably use a somewhat more moderate tone than sendralist or kerouac, but I think you have to keep in mind that your story of the War(s) is not necessarily shared by everyone else.

While no one disputes that your ancestors put their life at risk or sacrificed their lives, it is a different story that they did not have to fear that their home town would be annihilated, or their wives or daughters raped, or their kids killed on their way to school, or their workplace or farm destroyed, and so on.
It does not make your ancestors' sacrifice one bit less to praise, but it is a different story to come home to a confetti parade or to come home to half your family killed or your home destroyed as collateral damage.
If you have a problem to understand that you should think of 9/11 - and imagine that every day for years was 9/11...

Again, I think it was much more the jovial tone of the NYT article that raised eyebrows than any factual errors as it managed to put the price of Coke in France in context with unimaginable bloodshed. Which I consider simply lacking in style or respect or taste.

The tone of the article is similar to someone's trip report saying that you should reserve your Oktoberfest booth for the evening hours so you can squeeze in a trip to Dachau in the morning.
I *know* that these people have every right to regard it as one item on their list of sights and that they have no intentions at all to appear disrespectful - but it still makes me cringe.

This is very different from the story a PP told about the Berlin Airlift - which was clearly a win-win situation. Even though I had no association with that time (I lived in Berlin from my early 20s till early 40s), I knew very well that I wouldn't have been able to live in that city if it had not been for the courageous pilots (of whom several lost their lives) - even though all this happened for just one year decades before I was born.

Well, the Americans thought that the Iraqis would be in the streets waving little American flags when they arrived, too, speaking of wars that were none of their business.
____
That was one American, Dick Cheney, also known as Darth Vader.

We visited WWI battlegrounds in May, a horrendous war, by any measure. Sometimes the loss of soldiers and civilians is not only an indication of the savagery of the war but also poor military and civilian leadership.

It the mentality of an adolescent who refuses to acknowledge help because he thinks that will diminish his independence and self-worth.

I think we have all read enough reports about misbehavior by liberation forces, thinking that they can do anything and take anything because they have "liberated" the local population from worse people and are entitled to a reward. So I will refrain from any stories about how certain soldiers behaved in eastern France in the autumn of 1944 after taking control of the area. Naturally, I am not referring to the majority of soldiers, but it only takes a few to spoil the impression of liberation.

"Well, the Americans thought that the Iraqis would be in the streets waving little American flags when they arrived, too, speaking of wars that were none of their business." Agreed.

I am not among them. To me the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was the worst blot on American history and I said so at every turn. Voila, the results today. And shame on Tony Blair going along with Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz and fellow think-tank neocons. Colin Powell also compromised himself by spouting that fake "evidence" at the UN just before the invasion.

I read once that before the invasion, Bush admitted that he did not know there were two factions in Iraq - Sunnis and Shia. Again, viola the results...

Colin Powell also compromised himself by spouting that fake "evidence" at the UN just before the invasion.

Even though we're getting off the original topic, I have to admit that this particular event was the most appalling thing I saw at the time. Just after Powell's "performance" with the WMD business, there was a French news program that showed that the exact same photos that he displayed were actually French satellite photos from about 4 years earlier showing a dairy plant. I was naïve enough at the time to think that this revelation would circle the world to completely disprove the travesty at the UN, but no, there was no mention anywhere because nobody dared to challenge Colin Powell and the war plans continued as scheduled, all the way to freedom fries.

I was in Paris for Bastille Day a few years ago and realized that few countries still have military parades as celebrations including North Korea, China, and France. Now that is fine company.

The only way I would consider America protecting France in the future is to secure the butter and chocolate. That way, Keruoac could not reproach America for the dastardly acts of few Americans and lumping all us together with Dick Cheney, while conveniently forgetting all the good was done when they could not protect themselves.

"I *know* that these people have every right to regard it as one item on their list of sights and that they have no intentions at all to appear disrespectful - but it still makes me cringe."

Cowboy, I suspect that plenty of people visit the Louvre and the Mona Lisa just to be able to say they've seen it. Or in other words, they visit for social reasons, and not because they have an interest in art or brush technique or whatever. I daresay many people visit military sites and concentration camps for much the same reason. But does it really matter? Back in the Middle Ages people went on pilgrimages hither and yon to see religious 'miracles' and en route to or from bought 'souvenirs' such as the last piece of the True Cross - the collective total of last pieces could probably erect a wooden fence around the globe, but I digress: my point is, visiting for social and sentimental reasons has been going on for a long time - with art sites, religious sites, and yes, with war sites. It seems to be human nature.

sandralist, you are free to dislike the article; me, I think it was written for readers of the New York Times, and I filter it through that lens. It didn't particularly interest me, but I found it neither reverent nor disrespectful, even if it is slanted. Speaking of slanted, the section on WWII in Musee de l'Armee in Les Invalides has descriptions written in English but also in French. I found the French descriptions to vary somewhat from the English ones - to read the French version, one would think France won WWII all by themselves. I was mildly amused but hardly irritated or outraged, since I accept that a different slant will be taken depending on the intended audience. Mind, I tend to seek out different opinions on a lot of things, I don't just want to confine my study to those writers who confirm whatever opinions I may already happen to have.

I have never witnessed anyone behaving anything less than respectfully at Ypres or Omaha or Juno or at war memorials in anywhere from Australia to Japan. Of course people will take a special interest in places where their relatives took part. I don't think this is necessarily self-indulgent. It may simply be part of an attempt to get to know people who may no longer be around to get to know in the conventional sense.

Imdonethere.. I can't believe you actually took offense at that woman on the train.. how horribly she treated you.. saying that.. omg...the abuse you put up with from the nasty French woman( and I bet there was a reason she said that too... )

There are some balances posts in here.. and a few not so balanced.. perfectly deluded almost.

I thought that was an interesting comparison..the poster who suggested living in a war zone would be like living the day of 9/11 for YEARS and YEARS.. think that might change a lot of peoples attitudes and "they should haves" if they actually had to live in a war zone.

the poster who suggested living in a war zone would be like living the day of 9/11 for YEARS and YEARS.. think that might change a lot of peoples attitudes and "they should haves" if they actually had to live in a war zone.

But it isn't, which is why there are many movies trying to deal with the varying attitudes of ordinary people living a day-to-day life in occupied territory. There are striking exception to this observation--the siege of Leningrad for one, not to speak of living in the varying ghettos. And I think that there was a big difference between the eastern front and the western front. Oradour-sur-Glane was a singular horror in France perpetrated by soldiers who had done or seen worse on the eastern front.

Imdonethere.. I can't believe you actually took offense at that woman on the train.. how horribly she treated you.. saying that.. omg...the abuse you put up with from the nasty French woman( and I bet there was a reason she said that too... )
___________
I knew the accusations with foundation would be coming from someone, I was just unsure from whom. Yes, our greatest crime was our youth. And anyone who knows my wife and myself would laugh in your face at such a charge. We have made life long friends from all over the world during our travels, none of them French. Is that a wonder (see above).

imdonethere..a woman said "it must be their first time in France" and you took offense. It WAS your first time in France wasn't it???

And in all the years since you have been unable to make friends with a single French person.

I think you have a chip on your shoulder.

I can't think of any one nationality that I couldn't find someone to be friends with,,especially if I was as well travelled as you are... I am even marrying a man who is half American,..lol

You decided the French woman was "haughty" to you .. you likely thought it was because you were American ,,didn't you.. but maybe she said that because you were obviously young travellers and it had nothing to do with nationality. You perhaps didn't know the procedures and she noticed it.. but did it occur to you that .. THAT had nothing to do with her nationality but perhaps just her personality. So you have decided all French are haughty.

Let me assure you , you are completely deluded. I was in France this summer . Had to go to a relatives place outside paris. The trip should have taken 1 hour and 15 minutes. It took us three hours as we got hopelessly lost and my elderly relative could not help with directions (she had just moved into area.. was 85, does not drive or take buses).. We did not have a cell phone ,,but the bus driver ( we had to take a train first, then a local bus) got on his phone and phoned her.. then a lady on the bus tried to find it on google maps. But she lives in a brand new suburb .. so was not on it. Then another lady told us we were on wrong bus. Then a lady on next bus told us which stop to get off at.. then we still got lost.. and a man with a broken arm and a child WALKED us a mile out of his way.. right to her front door.. while chatting to her on his phone for us.

No one spoke English.. or very poor at best,. and my French is absolutely dismal.. I simply had an address on paper and a SMILE and threw myself on their mercy.. and everyone tried hard to help us.. I will never accept anymore crap about the rude or haughty French.. they are different then us, more formal yes, but they are human and most are very nice..with a few jerks thrown in of course.. just like Americans and Canadians. So your tone definitely infers that in all your travels and years you couldn't possibly be friendly with a French person. I blame your attitude as I doubt you have only met jerks ... one yes.. but a nation. Shame on you.

This year the soldiers of more than 80 nations paraded on the Champs Elysées including those of former colonies and former enemies. I don't think very many countries could bring that many soldiers together for a parade of peace.

As for the death penalty, the United States is already the world champion for the number of people in prison; it won't take much effort to also become world champion for the number of executions.

Wow.. do you ever have a chip on your shoulder.. just the way you talk( write) " military of a second rate power pass down what was once a glorious boulevard".. lol

First off. France is not "a second rate power".. its actually THIRD rated in terms of "2014 Worlds most powerful countries" in the world. . USA is first.. but China is right on your tail, really.. right on your tail, followed by France , which is on their tail, then UK and Germany.. Canada ranks #9 and we are ok with that..

And if you have only ever met jerks in France.. well that says more about you then the nation. Most folks can at least begrudgingly admit they have met nice and kind people in any nation. Of course that's because they have a fair and balanced outlook on things I suppose.

8 November 1942: My Dad was the first to jump in combat with the 509th into North Africa, he then went to Italy and then France to fight. He was in operation Dragoon invading from the south of France. My Grandfather served in WW1 and my great uncle was shell shocked his entire life as I recall. He just shook all the time. My Dad jumped five times and was awarded the silver star at the battle of the bulge. He loved Paris and always smiled when he talked of it. I was very sad at the many innocent lives that were lost due to the bombing raids. I saw the graveyards. I suppose we have come a long way with the smart bombs and drones but war is still very ugly.

Kerouac, My father fractured his back in one jump behind enemy lines because his commander decided it would be better to jump at a lower altitude than be shot out of the sky, many compound fractures as they landed in woods and rocks. The first jump into SA was so poorly done that a load of soldiers jumped into the water and all drowned since it was night. My Dad was bitter over the lack of command judgment and the lost of his friends. It was a screwed up war and no doubt about it there were a lot of mistakes. I totally understand where you are coming from. My Dad was a huge history buff and it would make him so mad reading about some General's take on why they did such and such. He use to say a gallon of gas was worth more than a soldiers life to a General. They did save a whole village in Belgium and he would receive nice letters from time to time from people in the village. He was shot up bad during that battle but made it home. We went and planted a heather plant next to the monument the village erected for the 509th. I so appreciated their doing that and took pics for my Dad. But as I said, my Dad loved France.